The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal has ruled in a case brought by a mother and her children against a hospital. The court holds the hospital liable for the damage (material and immaterial) suffered by the mother and her children because the gynecologist during a fertility treatment in 1988 did not use the husbands sperm, but his own.
Background
In 1988, the mother underwent a treatment at the hospital where it was agreed with the treating gynecologist that the sperm of her then husband would be used for insemination. This was a so-called KIE treatment, Artificial Insemination with sperm from the Own partner. However, the gynecologist did not use the husbands sperm but his own and did not inform the mother and her then husband about this. As a result of the treatment, triplets were born. The mother and children have held the hospital liable for the damage they suffered as a result.
Contractual relationship with the hospital
In 1988, before the current Civil Code was introduced, it was common for the medical specialist to work within the hospital walls based on an admission agreement with the hospital. The patient who came for treatment then concluded a contract with that medical specialist in the hospital. The court rules that in 1988 the mother was justified in trusting that she also had a contract with the hospital for the treatment of her infertility by the gynecologist working within the hospital walls. Therefore, the mother and children were allowed to file a compensation claim against the hospital.
Limitation period?
The law states that the right to compensation expires twenty years after an event. In this case, that is the conception of the children in 1988, so the claim expired in 2008. Unlike the court of first instance, the court of appeal considers that the hospitals invocation of the limitation period in this case is unreasonable. The culpable infringement of the physical and mental integrity of the mother and children is so serious that it is unacceptable to reject the claim due to limitation. Because the court of appeal does not honor the limitation plea, the case was further substantively assessed.
Breach of contract and unlawful act
Judgments
- ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:127
